Following up
We have two “loose ends” rumors out there right now. The one about the early April referrals, and the one about interim adoptions kicking you out of the China program.
I’ve had lots of emails and PM’s on the latter, and very few emails and PM’s on the former.
Which means I don’t have any further information on the April referrals. I wish we knew more.
As for the issue of folks who complete an interim adoption, all of the emails and PM’s just further stress how conflicting all of this information is. It is clear that some agencies have been sending updates, I do not believe this is a case of agencies hiding this from the CCAA. However, at least some of the agencies not allowing it are saying that this is what is happening.
So far we have one person who says that they were kicked out of the China program by the CCAA for doing another international adoption while waiting. The family has since stated that they still meet all of the rules (income, family size, etc). However, if this were a widespread thing then I would think that we’d have heard from more people, but we have not.
Add to this the fact that families have added to their families and sent the update to the CCAA and then had correspondence from the CCAA about further information needed (thus proving their agency sent the update to them), and who did not get kicked out, and it’s really puzzling.
We can’t really rely on the agencies here, since so many of the agencies are saying something different. And to my knowledge no one has ever found anything on the CCAA’s site that forbids it.
One agency that recently changed their rules to allow it has let their families know to hold off because now they are getting conflicting information about it. Does that mean that a month ago it was okay and now it’s not? I don’t know.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
RQ wrote “We can’t really rely on the agencies here since so many of the agencies are saying something different.”
Unfortunately, I believe that many of us feel that way. As waiting families, it feels as if there is so much “hidden” from us. So disheartening… Perhaps it’s time for America to streamline this whole process, with one governing agency in charge of all adoptions (i.e.: such as it’s done in the UK or the Netherlands) as opposed to so many, many different agencies, all of whom have different fees, policies, etc.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This is just one more piece of conflicting information that is part of the China adoption program. I am starting to wonder what information doesn’t conflict anymore. I just wish we would start hearing some definitive answers that are across the board, whether it be from agencies or from the CCAA. How frustrating this must be for families wanting to do an interim adoption.
Wendy
LID 12/27/05
http://adoptionandfire.typepad.com
October 17th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I wonder if the agency that told clients to hold off after allowing concurrents read these posts on Rumor Queen and got scared - rather than receiving anything specific from CCAA.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
hmmm, very interesting point, zhoanuer. that would not surprise me at all…
October 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Well, they said it was from the CCAA, but who knows.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I wonder if we (PAPs) have surprised the powers that be again by jumping on this more than they ever could have expected. Maybe they thought a few people would do it, and no big deal, but now suddenly it’s a big issue.
Also, I wonder if it’s the reviewer who’s been making the call, but now it’s reached higher levels and they’ve been told that a concensus will be needed before letting this go on as is.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I spoke to my agency regarding the April 4000 thing today. The only thing my SW said was that China doesn’t give out direct numbers, and they have no way of guestimating how many applications were sent in April. She does suspect that is was quite larger than the “average” month just based on how many dossiers my agency sent over itself. So, I guess we can figure that is true.
We did touch on interim adoptions, but nothing concrete other than her to say people were doing them. Nothing on what China’s reaction to these adoptions.
I don’t know. It is disturbing on so many levels.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
ya know i really don’t know why everything is a secret with the ccaa i mean why??????
October 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
russchi - I think that we (PAP’s) are much more empowered (and getting more so every month) by this incredible, dynamic exchange of information via the internet.
This kind of across-the-board communication was unheard of just a few years ago, thus, some agencies are still operating under the status quo of years past, namely issuing well-screened tidbits of information to their clients on a “need to know” basis. I think that most American agencies would prefer it “old school,” when they alone could decide (and disseminate) what we “need” to know and when.
By discussing things on RQ and in our newsgroups, via e-mail exchanges, and on our blogs, we’re all quickly aware of what’s happening. So, yes, I’m certain the agencies are surprised, and I think that since “we know they know,” American agencies should be more forthcoming with relative information, otherwise, they look, at best, foolish/unaware or, at worst, deceitful.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I realize this is most likely an extreme oversimplification of the issues involved in what’s going on here, but food for thought: Both issues addressed in RQ’s blog could be explained by favoritism or the lack thereof on the part of reviewers, matchers, or the CCAA in general. That is - perhaps some agencies are well liked and others aren’t.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
When I read Waiting4agirl’s post, I was momentarily stunned:
“I spoke to my agency regarding the April 4000 thing today.”
I’m prepared for a long wait, but there’s no way I’m going to hold on until April 4000!
Yeah, yeah, I know she means the 4,000 LIDS for April 2007. I’m glad to find even a little humor in this situation.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I just talked to my large China-only agency in the US. They said they would not send any updates to the CCAA about our other international adoption which will be complete early next year. They said at this time, they would not anticipate having any problems with our China adoption because of our other adoption.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
This makes me nervous. My Husband is trying to talk me into getting pregnant while we wait but it seems like that could effect our adoption. Am I reading too much into this? LID 3/19/07
October 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
zhaonuer, no they were given conflicting information directly from CCAA about their agency’s concurrent policy. It has nothing to do with RQ.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Anonymouswait… “warning! warning!”As far as streamlining this process into one governing agency, that would absolutely ensure that no effort needed to be made regarding servicing clients with information and support. Having an agency system where the agency is in competition with other agencies is the only way to ensure there is some reason to make the effort to respond to clients needs in some way, or take the consequences of not doing so. With one governing agency in sole control of information and processing, politics, domestic and international, will most certainly interfere with access to information. There would be no need to provide an efficient or caring service if clients had no other place to go. The response when the going got tough would be take it or leave it. Maybe the world will change soon, but I believe that where there is choice there is a second chance.
cab2
October 18th, 2007 at 12:06 am
We are with the same agency as the family who recently completed the Vietnam adoption (and then was told by the CCAA to close their file). The family was clearly told that they cannot expect to complete another international adoption while waiting to adopt from China, and then complete the adoption from China.
It appears to me that agencies that are reporting changes in family status to the CCAA are being given this same information as they report to the CCAA. I have been operating under the assumption that agencies are obligated to report this information to the CCAA (i.e. the birth or adoption of a child).
My question for you RQ- is there a stated CCAA requirement that agencies are responsible for reporting significant changes in family status? It seems to me that this is where the inconsistency lies- some agencies are reporting information, and some are not, and therefore we are seeing differing policies regarding interim adoptions.
I was shocked to read the statement from lilysmom2b (above) that her CHina-only agency will not report to the CCAA regarding her interim adoption. Yet my agency is stating that they are required to report such information, or else put their entire China program at risk (and all of the families waiting in the program). Hmmm, looks like I picked the wrong agency.
I think clarifying this issue of reporting would help get to the bottom of the issue of whether or not interim adoptions are allowed.
As a family in the midst of an interim adoption- this has been heartbreaking news. I would like some clarification.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Cab2, it’s already happening – many agencies aren’t giving out ANY information, instead, telling their clients to avoid “rumor sites†and “we’ll tell you when you need to know.” And the thing is, Prospective Adoptive Parents are AFRAID to make waves, ask questions, “bother†their agencies. Is this not true, RQ readers? For the vast majority of PAP’s, I think it is. So really, it already is “take it or leave it.â€
All this conflicting information on interim adoptions is a prime illustration of what is completely wrong with the current system. Why? Because (it seems to me), the agencies are making their own rules. There is NO ONE overseeing the agencies; it’s a monopoly with no checks and balances.
Thank God for the American implementation of the Hague is all I can say. At least there will eventually be a clearing house of complaints against agencies, somewhere where families can get valid feedback and not emotionally pick an agency based on a bang-up website, tear-jerker seminar, or a well-done promotional dvd.
Caring and efficient service, Cab2? I personally know a few families whose agency hasn’t contacted them a single time since they were LID over a year and a half ago (no calls, e-mails, newsletters – nada) and were of no help whatsoever when it came time to renew their 171-H’s. Is this the caring, efficient service of which you speak? Riiiiight.
I think it’s high time to take the wild profits out of “non-profit†international adoption. Let’s have a streamlined, TRANSPARENT program, one where there are no early referrals nor where vital information is shrouded in secrecy.
p.s. When I posted my initial comment asking for a centralized process, I thought “The agencies will never let THAT happen.” But I was so surprised how quick Cab2’s “warning, warning” response appeared in the comments. :)
October 18th, 2007 at 12:46 am
p.s. Cab2 wrote
“Having an agency system where the agency is in competition with other agencies is the only way to ensure there is some reason to make the effort to respond to clients needs in some way, or take the consequences of not doing so.”
HUH? What consequences are you talking about? If an agency doesn’t respond to a client’s e-mails, pleas, needs, requests, what are the “consequences” for that agency? Who are the agency police that will dole out the consequences of which you speak?
C’mon, Cab2. We all know that agencies make their own rules & policies. Some make you use their travel / reservation services, some don’t, etc. And if we don’t follow the rules of our agencies, the only “consequences” are against us,
jeopardizing our adoptions. There are no consequences against a poor agency. No one polices the agencies. Not. At. All.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:50 am
(posted these out of order, sorry)
Cab2, it’s already happening – many agencies aren’t giving out ANY information, instead, telling their clients to avoid “rumor sites†and “we’ll tell you when you need to know.” And the thing is, Prospective Adoptive Parents are AFRAID to make waves, ask questions, “bother†their agencies. Is this not true, RQ readers? For the vast majority of PAP’s, I think it is. So really, it already is “take it or leave it.â€
All this conflicting information on interim adoptions is a prime illustration of what is completely wrong with the current system. Why? Because (it seems to me), the agencies are making their own rules. There is NO ONE overseeing the agencies; it’s a monopoly with no checks and balances.
Thank God for the American implementation of the Hague is all I can say. At least there will eventually be a clearing house of complaints against agencies.
Caring and efficient service, Cab2? I personally know a few families whose agency hasn’t contacted them a single time since they were LID over a year and a half ago (no calls, e-mails, newsletters – nada) and were of no help whatsoever when it came time to renew their 171-H’s. Is this the caring, efficient service of which you speak? Riiiiight.
I think it’s high time to take the wild profits out of “non-profit†international adoption. Let’s have a streamlined, TRANSPARENT program, one where there are no early referrals nor where vital information is shrouded in secrecy.
p.s. When I posted my initial comment asking for a centralized process, I thought “The agencies will never let THAT happen.” But I was so surprised how quick the “warning, warning” response appeared in the comments. :)
October 18th, 2007 at 7:20 am
adoptive.parent - I don’t know if there is a stated rule or not. As for your statement about agencies not sending them in and that’s the difference, you may want to reread my blog post again, specifically the sixth paragraph. Starts with Add to this the fact that
October 18th, 2007 at 8:50 am
anonymouswait - Do you really think there will be checks and balances if the government takes over this process? Hah! No, they like to project the image of checks and balances but it doesn’t happen. And there really is no grievance procedure for the government. I have read TONS of stories where people can’t get in touch with government agencies about fingerprints or the such. And some of the USCIS offices even tell people they can’t contact them!
And Cab2’s point, I think, is the fact that we as customers get to choose our agency. If we end up with a lousy agency that is unfortunate but we had the CHOICE. Once you have government take control of something there is NO MORE CHOICE. The big word here is CHOICE. There are yahoo groups set up for the purposes of people doing agency research. APs share their experiences about their agencies so that prospective parents can decide to use an agency or not. It is up to the prospective parents to do the research.
Besides, talk to the people who live in another country where they have to wait a YEAR just to be approved to start the process of adoption. Thus their entire waiting time is a year or more than American’s waiting time. And that is not something I am willing to do.
Besides we are getting into a “political” discussion when we start talking about MORE governmental control, so lets not go there.
I for one would not get into an adoption program if the government had control over my entire process. Yikes! is all I can say about that.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:08 am
One point on making IA solely the province of the government:
BCIS is such a friendly and communicative agency.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 am
adoptingliberty — But the U.S. government “is” taking over IA operations. The U.S. State Department is now the central authority over IA under Hague. At this very moment, there are State Dept. employees, sitting in their cubes ( and believe me — wishing they were somewhere else) — working to figure out exactly how this is going to work. You may not like it, but it’s already happened.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:21 am
As someone who fought tooth and nail and had to get my Congressman involved to deal with a power-hungry crazy person at the USCIS office I went through, I do NOT want the US government to create one big centralized agency for adoption. I know some people had wonderful experiences with helpful and caring USCIS officers, but I did not. I think most people who went through my office in the past year would agree with me. It was by far the worst experience of my paperchase and I’m already dreading having to do the I-171 renewal, and it’s still a good 8 months away!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am
If you’re not happy with the quality of service you have received from your agency, one option everyone has is to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
Both of the general IA books I read had sections on choosing an agency. Both strongly recommended checking the BBB before signing with an agency. I did.
No, nobody is going to come slap your agency on the wrist because you filed a complaint, but it will be noted in an “official” capacity. Other PAPs will have the benefit of your insites before they sign. And in general agencies REALLY don’t like bad reports with the BBB.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Oh I forgot to say my opinion on the whole government-streamline-put-everything-for-IA-under-a-government-control-agency, in the US.
It took me 3.5 months just to get an appointment for finger printing…Federal Government part of IA
Who keeps raising the costs of filing for and renewing fingerprints, I-600As…Federal Government (No matter how long the adoption takes I have paid my fees to my agency I won’t have to renew, reapply, or repay my program fees.)
I called the USCIS in Washington D.C. when the confusion over the free renewal of the I-600A was hot back over the summer. I specifically pressed the option for questions on IA the girl who answered my call had NEVER heard of an I-600A. She recommended to me that I Google it because that was how she go all her info on the form. She also told me and I quote…”It is impossible for 2 different USCIS officers to give conflicting information. They both work for the same government office.”…Again the US Federal Government’s roll in IA
Sorry no, I do definantly do not want IA to fall under a central US Federal Government agency.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Yeah, chinasyndrome, I do not like the way we are involved with the Hague. But I could say the same thing about the UN. But I can’t go there since it is all political for me.
Besides, this will be our one and only adoption and with a 12/05 LID we are done soon! Thank goodness.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Ok RQ- I re-read. I still think we have two issues:
1. Some agencies report changes in family situation, and others do not. Is this ethical?? Is it required? I’m still unclear here. And I would like to be able to present a case to my agency for NOT reporting if it is not required by the CCAA. How can I find this out?? Anyone??
2. The CCAA is giving conflicting information to agencies. Some families are allowed to complete interim adoptions, and some are not. So again, we’re back to dealing with “Golden Agencies.” Looks like my agency is not in favor of the CCAA- wish I had known that when I selected them. If I was with lilysmom2b’s agency it appears that I’d be all right. No fair.
One more question RQ: the families mentioned in your 6th paragraph- how long ago did this happen? Are these recent? Because I do know that my agency has been reporting these updates for years, and this is the very FIRST time they have been told that the family must close their file.
Still heartbroken and searching for answers…
October 18th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Yes, recent within the past three or four months.
And, it is my understanding that your agency has not been sending any updates to the CCAA, for anything, but got a request from the CCAA that they needed to start sending updates when there were changes. So, they did.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I don’t believe that to be true RQ- not sure where you are getting that information. They do send updates as needed. As further proof, I know of another family’s file that was updated in August for a different change in family status.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I’m getting that information from other people who say they know the couple who had to leave the program. This couple was told ahead of time the agency had not been sending updates and had been instructed by the CCAA to start doing so, and the agency wasn’t sure what would happen when they did.
Maybe you aren’t with that couple’s agency after all?
There are so many inconsistencies in this whole thing. Several people have asked me to get the state department involved in this to try to get some actual answers, but I’m hesitant to go that far with it.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Maybe there are multiple families this happened to?? Because this DID just happen to a family at my agency. I have been notified directly by my agency since we are involved in an interim adoption. I am not comfortable sharing any more details publicly, but I do feel fairly certain we are talking about the same agency.
Your comment above “…This couple was told ahead of time the agency had not been sending updates and had been instructed by the CCAA to start doing so” also leads me to believe that the CCAA DOES expect to receive these updates. So then I ask the question again, is it an ethical practice for all of the other agencies who are not sending updates? Are they putting their China programs at risk, OR are we just seeing another example of preferential treatment at the agency level?
Still wishing I’d picked a different agency….
October 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
The State Department can do nothing to pressure the CCAA/China on referrals or how they manage their IA program, but they are, however, now responsible for – and the central authority on — intercountry adoption in the U.S under Hague. It is their responsibility to make sure that the process is “straightforward†and “transparent†(their words – not mine). And anyway, it’s about time the State Department got acquainted with what DH and I lovingly refer to as the “Great China Adoption Boondoggle.†Look, the only way you’re going to get anything resembling consensus on things like interim adoptions or agencies that may have “less than ethical†relationships with the CCAA or agencies that are derelict in their obligation to divulge “realistic†wait times, is if enough of you let the State Department know that there are some serious problems with China IA involving 10-20-30 thousand Americans who put their trust in agencies that weren’t up to the task of managing a program run amok. Only the State Department (and their work with the Council on Accreditation: reportconcern@coanet.org) can put enough pressure on agencies to get their sh## together. And if you really want to scare the crap out of the folks at State – you might suggest that it would be better to get out in front of this thing now rather than wait for an “above the fold†headline that reads something like: “Thousands of Americans Left Without Answers – and Without a Child — in Their Bid to Adopt From China.†The CCAA is not going to help you out here. And neither are your agencies.
You can contact the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues at 202-736-9130. They will probably connect you to Ruth Lincoln. She works on intercountry adoption issues for Central Asia. You may have to leave a message in order for her to get back to you. You can also send inquiries to: AskCI@state.gov.
Here’s some additional contact information some of you might want to file away for when things really go south. By the way, this is public information. It’s just hard to find. And you should know that folks from the Children’s Issues Office are regularly dispatched to conferences and the like to provide their expertise on IA issues under Hague. So it’s not like this isn’t part of their job. Go a head — Give them a call – It’s what they are there for.
Assistant Secretary Maura Harty
Bureau of Consular Affairs Office
** Has primary responsibility within the State Department for Intercountry adoption through its Office of Children’s Issues.
Ellen Conway
Director of the office of Children’s Issues
202-736-9083
Kathy Ruckman
Deputy Director of the Office of Children’s Issues
202-736-9123
Kemy Monahan
Unit Chief for Intercountry adoption and the Hague Convention
Christopher Lamora
Chief of the Intercountry Adoption Unit (Bureau of Consular Affairs)
202-663-2928
Nyda Budig
Public Outreach Coordinator in the Hague Adoption Convention Implementation Unit
202-736-9270
October 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The State Department can do nothing to pressure the CCAA/China on referrals or how they manage their IA program, but they are, however, now responsible for – and the central authority on — intercountry adoption in the U.S under Hague. It is their responsibility to make sure that the process is “straightforward†and “transparent†(their words – not mine). And anyway, it’s about time the State Department got acquainted with what DH and I lovingly refer to as the “Great China Adoption Boondoggle.†Look, the only way you’re going to get anything resembling consensus on things like interim adoptions or agencies that may have “less than ethical†relationships with the CCAA or agencies that are derelict in their obligation to divulge “realistic†wait times, is if enough of you let the State Department know that there are some serious problems with China IA involving 10-20-30 thousand Americans who put their trust in agencies that weren’t up to the task of managing a program run amok. Only the State Department (and their work with the Council on Accreditation: reportconcern@coanet.org )can put enough pressure on agencies to get their sh## together. And if you really want to scare the crap out of the folks at State – you might suggest that it would be better to get out in front of this thing now rather than wait for an “above the fold†headline that reads something like: “Thousands of Americans Left Without Answers – and Without a Child — in Their Bid to Adopt From China.†The CCAA is not going to help you out here. And neither are your agencies.
You can contact the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues at 202-736-9130. They will probably connect you to Ruth Lincoln. She works on intercountry adoption issues for Central Asia. You may have to leave a message in order for her to get back to you. You can also send inquiries to: AskCI@state.gov.
Here’s some additional contact information some of you might want to file away for when things really go south. By the way, this is public information. It’s just hard to find. And you should know that folks from the Children’s Issues Office are regularly dispatched to conferences and the like to provide their expertise on IA issues under Hague. So it’s not like this isn’t part of their job. Go a head — Give them a call – It’s what they are there for.
Assistant Secretary Maura Harty
Bureau of Consular Affairs Office
** Has primary responsibility within the State Department for Intercountry adoption through its Office of Children’s Issues.
Ellen Conway
Director of the office of Children’s Issues
202-736-9083
Kathy Ruckman
Deputy Director of the Office of Children’s Issues
202-736-9123
Kemy Monahan
Unit Chief for Intercountry adoption and the Hague Convention
Christopher Lamora
Chief of the Intercountry Adoption Unit (Bureau of Consular Affairs)
202-663-2928
Nyda Budig
Public Outreach Coordinator in the Hague Adoption Convention Implementation Unit
202-736-9270
October 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
chinasyndrome - agreed that the State Department can’t really force a change on anything unless it had to do with verifying that the children were truly orphans.
However, the State Department can clarify rules when they need clarifying. And that seems to be what some families are wanting to see happen.
As for what needs to be sent - yes the CCAA wants updates when families have a major change in life circumstance, but I don’t know if that is a a written rule or not.
And think about it. If the rule was that families will be kicked out if they do an interim adoption, why bother making the family do an updated home study before kicking them out? That’s money spent for no reason, let them just pull their own dossier. Obviously, this is not a rule that is hard and fast or the CCAA wouldn’t be saying “send us the update”, they’d say “have your families withdraw”.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I now remember my agency telling me that no matter how smoothly IA is running there is always a chance for unpredictability, and nothing was 100% sure. we were also hoping to grow our family while we wait, but not at the risk of being kicked out of the program or endangering it for others. We will just wait and see since we can’t have it all.:( P.S. I really like the idea of private adoption agencies for better or worse. We shouldn’t all have to suffer, I was so envious of people who got to do interim family building but they should not be penalized , we all pick our agencies for different reasons.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU China Syndrome. You gave us all solid contact information that I will be saving in my adoption folder. Definitely.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Yes RQ — DH and I have had more than our share of conversations with some of these people. What the State Department (Office for Children’s Issues) needs to hear is that they have a pervasive problem with what exactly the rules - procedures - guidelines - policies - restrictions - etc. are for people in China IA. And they need to come to grips with the shear number of American families caught up in this mess.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
chinasyndrome - I agree. But, as a no-longer-waiting-parent, I don’t really think I have a say in whether this is what the adoption community wants to do or not.
If the adoption community in general thinks this is a good idea then I can get us organized to do that. But, if not, then I don’t want to do that.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I should also add that there is a thread in the forum where it looks like most people want a definitive answer. I just don’t know if they want one bad enough to actually ask for it.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
As someone considering an interim adoption with a spring 07 LID, I would love some clarification.
If we proceed, we’ll spend thousands of dollars towards what we assume are adoption costs of one of the two children we believe we are adding to our family and would be doing so with the complete support fo our social worker and China agency and agency for the country we are considering. Adoption costs are not easy for us (or most) to come up with. We will do so at the expense of other life needs. We also limit our agency choices drastically to ones who allow interim adoptions.
If it isn’t really “allowedâ€, and that information doesn’t trickle down to us for another 6 months or 12 months or even 3-4 years, then we’d have done both for no reason at all. I’d much rather know this now than after I’ve paid the fees and done the work.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
RQ,
Was the family denined a child already have a large family ?. I could see (dont agree) a personal bias on a part of the eualuator if they were a large family already.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Yes china dad, they did. But, they still qualified based on China’s rules, they did not go over the number allowed.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I think most waiting China PAPs fall into one of two opinions on this topic:
1. PAPs that would like a “ruling” on the topic of interim adoptions. This would include those that are considering an interim adoption but don’t want to take the risk until they have CCAA endorsement, and those that are being told they can’t do an interim adoption (by their agency) but would do one if their agency allowed it.
2. PAPs that do not want to push the issue - those that currently have an interim adoption underway and their agency is aware and supportive of it.
What might we stand to gain and what might we stand to lose if we petition for an answer?
On the Gain side: If CCAA were to answer definitively that they allow concurrent adoptions(with whatever conditions like 1 year between placement), then everyone would win… people in process would have peace of mind. Those currently on the fence could move confidently forward with starting an interim adoption. Agencies that aren’t letting their families pursue an interim adoption would likely have to change their policy. More babies might find more families since people that might not have otherwise adopted from a country other than China might then choose to do so… people would be a little more in control of their families and how and when they choose to grow them.
On the lose side: there is the real risk of great loss to those currently in process as well as those considering an interim adoption if CCAA says this is not allowed. The best scenario in this case would be that CCAA might say “No more interim adoptions, starting now, but families in process are exempt this one time.” Families in process would be OK in this case, but those that were on the fence would then not have that option going forward. Worse yet, what if the answer is no, and CCAA *doesn’t* grandfather in those that already have in-process adoptions? That would be heartbreaking for families that have invested their hearts, minds (and money) on finalizing both adoptions.
My personal opinion on the topic of interim adoptions is that China should allow them, as long as the current guidelines for timeframe between placements, etc. are met. I don’t think the fact of adopting from another country (taken on it’s own) is a valid reason for forcing a family to pull their China dossier - it’s tantamount to inflicting China’s own family-planning policies on the international community and it conflicts with the fact that they currently allow people with other children in the family to adopt. With the current wait times it is entirely possible that someone with a mid-2007 log in might have 4-5 years to wait. That is plenty of time to complete an adoption from another country and still have anywhere from 2-4 years until the China adoption is finalized.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I for one have started an interim adoption in Colombia. My agency told me that China would have no way of finding out about it. So my guess is that they won’t be telling the CCAA about it. My only problem is that I’m having to change the I-171H instead of applying for a new one (Colombia doesn’t like concurrent adoptions). So theoretically we would have to update our homestudy at that time which would show that we have an extra child since our dossier was logged in.